T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. S E AGR UM BE RN AR D F OR D, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 4167 ( D . C. N o. 2: 04 - CR - 11 7- TS)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. Seagrum B ernar d For d appea l s hi s convi ct i on fort hr ee c ount s of d istrib u tio n o f

c o c a in e b a se a n d o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te coca i ne bas e, al l i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and one c ountof unl aw ful p o ss e ss io n o f

a fire a rm b ya p e rso n w h o is a d d icte d to a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e in v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) , p u r s u a n tt o a c o n d i t i o n a l g u i l typ l e a . On ap p ea l, h e a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred b yd en y ing h is r eq u est fo r a- 2 -

F r a n k s h e a r i n g , a n d b yd e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e . Be c a u s e we h o ld th a t a F ra n k s h e a rin g w a s n o t n e c e ss a ry , an d th a t p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d to j us t i fythe s ear ch w arr ant , w e AF F I RM . I n February2004, a conf i dent i al i nform anti ntr oduced SandyPol i ce D et ect i ve M i chae l I kemi y as hi r o, a fi ve- y earvet er an of the pol i ce de part m ent cu rren tl yassig n ed to the S altL ak e A rea G an g P rojec t un it , to S ea g ram B ern ard F o rd . D e tec tiv e Ik e m iy a sh iro w a s in ter e ste d in m e e tin g F o rd b e c a u se o f h is s us pect ed mem ber s hi p i n t he “O r i gi nal Sw amp C om pt on C r i ps , ” a vi ol ent c ri m in a l s tr e e t g a n g p ri m a ri ly b a s e d in L o s A n g e le s C o u n ty, C a lifo rn ia . Fol l ow i ng thei ri ni t i al i ntr oduct i on, D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o pur chas ed coc ai ne bas e fr om For d on t hr ee s epar at e occ as i ons . I n t ot al , For d s ol d D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o appr oxi m at el y15 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e. O nce D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o began pur chas i ng drugs fr om For d, t he Sandy Pol i ce D epart m entpl ace d For d undercons t ants ur vei l l ance i n the hopes of fi ndi ng hi s “s t as h hous e. ” A l though t heyw er e uns ucce s s ful i n l ocat i ng the s t as h hous e, th e p o lice u n c o v e re d a n u m b e r o f c o n n e c tio n s lin k in g F o rd to S u lian a H e im u li a n d h e rr e s i d e n c e . He i mu l i , th e yl e a rn e d , wa s F o r d ’ s g i r l f r i e n d , a n d , o n t wo s e p a ra te o c c a s io n s , F o rd w a s id e n tifie d a s d ri v in g c a rs re g is te re d in h e r n a m e . F o rd w a s a ls o liv in g in H e im u li’ s h o u s e .- 3 -

O n February20, 2004, appr oxi m at el ytw o w eeks aft erthei ri ni t i al i ntr oduct i on, D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o m etFor d i n a Low e’ s H om e I m pr ovement s t or e parki ng l otl ocat ed i n M urr ay , U t ah, t o pur chas e coc ai ne bas e. For d di d not arr i ve al one. A ccompany i ng hi m w er e H ei m ul i , A nthonyG l enn J ohns on, J r . , and Ju an A lberto S erran tos. A fter co m p let ing the tran sac ti o n , D etec ti v e Ik em iy ash ir o as ked For d w hetherhe coul d pur chas e addi t i onal coca i ne. For d r es ponded thathe coul d notdo s o i m m edi at el y , butagr eed t o m eetD et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o l at erthat d a yto s e ll h im m o re c o c a in e . T hataft ernoon, For d s poke w i th D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o br i efl yby t e l e p h o n e . T h e y a g r e e d t o m e e ti n a T a c o B e l l p a r k i n g l o ti n W e s tV a l l e y C i ty, U t ah, atw hi ch t i m e For d i ndi cat ed he w oul d have the drugs D et ect i ve Ike m iy ash ir o req u ested . S u rve il lanc e sh o w ed that af ter l ea v ing the L o w e’s parki ng l ot , the onl ys t ops For d m ade w er e atthe Sal tL ake Ci tyI nt ernat i onal A irp o rt , a g as stati o n , an d H eim u li ’s reside n ce – w h ich w as h is final stop b efo re he arr i ved atthe pr e- arr anged Taco Bel l . W hen For d, w ho w as now acc om pani ed b yo n lyJo h n so n a n d S e rra n to s, a rriv e d a t T a c o B e ll, p o lice o ffice rs s to p p e d h is vehi cl e. For d, J ohns on, and Serr ant os w er e then i m m edi at el yarr es t ed. D ur i ng a ro u tin e in v e n to ryse a rc h , the p o lice fo u n d o n e o u n c e o f c o c a in e b a se c o n c e a led in For d’ s “butt ocks . ” D etec ti v e Ik em iy ash ir o then so u g h t a sea rch w arran t fo r H eim u li ’s r es i dence – i n w hi ch For d w as l i vi ng – forH ei m ul i her s el f, forany one found a t- 4 -

the r es i dence atthe t i m e of the s ear ch, and forthe tw o vehi cl es thatpol i ce o b se rv e d F o rd u se to c o m p lete h is d ru g d e liv e rie s. O n th e b a sis o f a n a ffid a v it pr epar ed byD et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o, the s t at e j udge i s s ued a ni ghtt i m e, no- knock w arr antforthe per s ons and pr opert i es r eques t ed. A s the pol i ce s ear ched H ei m ul i ’ s r es i dence on exec ut i on of the w arr ant , theyfound a l oaded G l ock . 45- cal i berpi s t ol underFor d’ s m attr es s , appr oxi m at el y56. 9 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, a n d $ 2 ,0 8 0 in c a sh , $ 3 0 0 o f w h ich w a s th e m o n e yD e tec tiv e Ik e m iy a sh iro u se d to p u rc h a s e c o c a in e b a s e e a rl ie r i n th e d a y . Fol l ow i ng the s ear ch, For d w as i ndi ct ed on thr ee c ount s of di s tr i but i on of coca i ne bas e and one countof pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e, al l i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and one c ountof unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 3) . Pr i or t o tr i al , For d fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence di s cover ed as a r es ul tof the w arr antbeca us e the a ffid a v it u se d to p ro c u re th e w a rra n t co n tain e d fa lse o r re c k les s m iss tate m e n ts thus ent i t l i ng hi m t o a Fr anks hear i ng. I n the al t ernat i ve, For d ar gued thatt he a ffid a v it o n its fa c e fa ile d to s u p p o rt a fin d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d e n ie d h is re q u e s t fo r a F ra n k s h e a ri n g , a n d d e n ie d h is m o tio n to d is m is s . F o rd file d a tim e ly ap p e a l. I n r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac ceptt he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the di s tr i ctcourtunl es s t heyar e cl ear l yerr oneous . U ni t ed St at es v. B r adfor d, 423 F. 3d 1149, 1156 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of- 5 -

r eas onabl enes s undert he Four th A m endment , how ever , i s a ques t i on of l aw w hi ch w e re v ie w d e n o v o . Id . F i rs t , F ord argues t hat hi s Fo urth A m end m ent r i gh t s w ere vi olat ed b ecause the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed hi s r eques tt o hol d a Fr anks hear i ng. I n Fr anks v. D el aw ar e, 438 U . S. 154, 155- 56 ( 1978) , the Supr eme C our thel d that , i n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , a defendanti s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherthe w arr ant w as i ssued i n rel i ance o n a d el i berat el yor r eckles sl yfal se affidavi t . In order t o just i fya F ranks heari ng , the d efen dan tm ustfi rs test abli sh bya prepo nd erance of the evidence thatoffi cers i ntent i on al l yor w i th reckl ess dis regar d fo r the truth om i t t ed m at eri al i nfo rm at i on from , or i ncluded fal se in fo rm a tio n in , the a ffid a v it. U n ited S tate s v . T isd a le, 2 4 8 F .3 d 9 6 4 , 9 7 3 (1 0 th C i r. 20 01 ). A defe nd ant canno trel yon con cl usoryst at em ents , bu trather m ust s uppor thi s pos i t i on w i th “affi davi t s ors w or n orotherw i s e r el i abl e s t at ement s of w i tnesses . . . or [i n the case that s uch cann ot be provided] theirabsenc e [m ust b e ] sa tisfa c to rilye x p lain e d .” F ra n k s, 4 3 8 U .S . at 1 7 1 . If a d e fe n d a n t m e e ts th is bur den, w e r evi ew the affi davi tas i f the omi t t ed i nform at i on had bee n i ncl uded ( or , conver s el y , as i f the err oneous i nform at i on had notbeen i ncl uded) and then d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e a ffid a v it, th u s c o n s tru e d , m e e ts p ro b a b le c a u s e s ta n d a rd s . I d. T he affi davi ts uppor t i ng the w arr antappl i cat i on di d noti ncl ude a s t at ement byFor d t o D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o thatFor d’ s “guyordeal erw as ar ound and that- 6 -

theycoul d al l m eetatthe Taco B el l t o compl et e the ounce tr ans act i on theyhad agr eed on e ar l i eri n the day . ” For d ar gues thatom i s s i on of thi s s t at ementcr eat es th e fa ls e im p re s s io n th a t h e p ic k e d u p th e d ru g s f ro m H e im u li’ s re s id e n c e . H o w ev er, Fo rd h as n o t prese n ted a n yev iden ce that D etec ti v e Ik em iy ash ir o o m itte d th e s ta te m e n t in te n tio n a lly o r w ith re c k le s s d is re g a rd fo r t h e tru th . T is d a le , 2 4 8 F .3 d a t 9 7 3 . A s s u c h , h e is n o t e n title d to a F ra n k s h e a ri n g . Fur ther , even i f the s t at ementw as i ncl uded, the affi davi t , s o cons trued, c o n tain e d su fficie n t ev id e n c e to e sta b lish p ro b a b le c a u se . P ro b a b le c a u se e x ists w hen the i s s ui ng j udge has a s ubs t ant i al bas i s forconcl udi ng t hat“gi ven al l the circu m stan ce s set fo rth in the affid av itb efo re [ the issu ing m ag istrate o r j u d g e], i ncl udi ng the ‘ ver aci ty ’ and ‘ bas i s of know l edge’ of per s ons s uppl y i ng hear s ay in fo rm a tio n , the re is a fa ir p ro b a b ili tyth a t co n tra b a n d o r e v id e n c e o f a c rim e w ill be found i n a part i cul arpl ace . ” I l l i noi s v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 238 ( 1983) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. K ennedy , 131 F. 3d 1371, 1 3 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). W h e n p o lice se e k a w a rra n t to s ear ch the home of an i ndi vi dual s us pect ed of drug- r el at ed cr i m es , w e have r equi r ed thata s uffi ci entnexus exi s tbetw een the defendant ’ s drug act i vi t i es and hi s hom e t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. U ni t ed St at es v. L al or , 996 F. 2d 1 5 7 8 , 1 5 8 2 -8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he affi davi tcont ai ned the fol l ow i ng uncont es t ed fa ct s : ( 1) D et ect i ve Ike m iy ash ir o h ad p arti cipa ted in three sep ara te dru g tr an sac ti o n s w ith F o rd o v er a- 7 -

two - we e k p e r i o d ; ( 2 ) He i mu l i wa s F o r d ’ s g i r l f r i e n d d u r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i me per i od; ( 3) For d’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e l i s t ed H ei m ul i ’ s hom e addr es s as hi s per s onal addr es s ; ( 4) For d l i ved i n H ei m ul i ’ s r es i dence and us ed hercar s t o m ake drug tr an sac ti o n s d u ri n g the re leva n t t im e p eriod ; ( 5 ) Joh n so n also slep t atH eim u li ’s r es i dence forthr ee w eeks pr i ort o the dat e the w arr antw as i s s ued; ( 6) on the day of F ord’s arr est , F ord t old D et ect i ve Ikem i y ashi ro that he need ed m ore drug b ase b e fo r e h e wo u l d b e a b l e t o s e l l h i m th e a d d i t i o n a l c o c a i n e ; ( 7 ) He i mu l i ’ s h o me w as For d’ s l as ts t op befor e he a r r i ved atthe pr edet erm i ned Taco B el l t o m eet D et ect i ve I kemi y as hi r o; and ( 8) aft erJ ohns on w as arr es t ed, J ohns on t ol d pol i ce th a t F o rd s to re d a p is to l u n d e r a m a ttr e s s in H e im u li’ s re s id e n c e . N one of the fa ct s es t abl i s hi ng the nexus betw een For d’ s drug- r el at ed act i vi tyand the pr opertyi dent i fi ed i n the s ear ch w arr antar e contr adi ct ed by For d’ s s t at ementthathe w as obt ai ni ng the drugs fr om hi s deal er . Fur ther , t hey overw hel m i ngl ygi ve r i s e t o a fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f F o rd’s req u est fo r a Fr anks hear i ng, and AF F I RM th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f F o rd ’s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge